Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PPC G5 On The Way -- And Fast

Posted by timothy on from the technodiversity dept.

Sulka writes: "The Register has a report claiming the PPC G5 CPU is ready for production and will be launched by Apple in January. Initial batch would include a 1.6GHz version with 2GHz to follow. 64 bit architecture, 10 stage pipeline, Silicon-On-Insulator and other buzzwords are mentioned." Maybe this will mean cheaper G4s for those of us who buy computers somewhat lower on the food chain, too.

2 of 526 comments (clear)

  1. puts Apple in a bind? by imac.usr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Hmmmm. This might actually represent a problem for Apple. Consider:
    1. Their fastest processor is an 867 MHz G4.
    2. Their fastest machine is a dual-800 MHz G4.
    3. When the G5 is available, the slowest speed going to the desktop market according to the article is 1.2 GHz.
    4. The rumor (unlikely as it sounds) is that there'll be an announcement at MacWorld Expo San Francisco of a G5-powered Mac.

    Now, if you knew a machine that was 50% faster in clockspeed than the current model was just a month or two away, wouldn't you want to wait? I would. And that's pretty much the last thing Apple really needs at the mement.

    Perhaps they should start with the slower speed models? Even an 800 MHz G5 should be faster than the current G4s, if coupled with a better-performing chipset/bus.

    --
    I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
  2. Re:Too bad it will be in $4000 computers by stripes · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Apple's machines require much less cooling hardware, plus the PowerPC chips have fewer transistors and should be easier to produce in quantity. Most likely this is where Apple is making most of its money.

    There are a lot of per product costs (aka non recurring expenses, or NREs). It costs roughly as much to develop a new version of MacOS as Windows. It costs roughly as much to design a new PowerPC as it does a new P-IIII or K7. Apple has about 5% of the market.

    If you pretend it costs $100,000 to design a new OS and CPU, and that there are 100 people that buy computers, you can see that the 95 people who buy a Wintel box will have to pay about $1000 each for their share of the NRE. The 5 people that buy Apples have to pay about $20,000 each.

    In the real world it isn't quite that bad since there are more uses for the PowerPC then just Apple's products. There are also more NREs that are similar in scale for PC makers. For example the video card in a Mac is pretty much just a PC video card. Apple ships about as many PCs as a big PC maker, so their cost to design a case and motherboard is about the same.

    Still if Apple had 50% of the market rather then 5% they could manage to sell the machines for much closer to Wintel prices (maybe even under it).

    I'm sure there are some other reasons, but I have a feeling that this is the biggest one...